Comparision of Two Different Vaccination Shedule for Fight with Infectious Bursal Disease in Layer Hens

Yıl 2017, , 76 - 84, 15.12.2017

Ahmet Bildir Sibel Gür

https://doi.org/10.35864/evmd.516696

Öz

Infectious Bursal Disease Virus (IBDV) is one of the most important immunosuppressive diseases of poultry which classified in Avibirnavirus genus belonging to Birnaviridae family. In this study, two different vaccination schedules were compared in the aspect of protectivity. For this purpose, blood serum samples was collected from 6 flocks of layer chickens in the postnatal period on days 0, 7, 14, 21, 28, 35, 42, 49, 56, 63 and 70. Samples were randomly selected from 10 chicks in every sampling. Flock 1 was sampled two more times due to acute clinical infection. The total of 680 serum samples was tested for IBDV specific Antibody (Ab) presence and titers using ELISA. Maternal derived antibody (MDA) was found to be protective for 6-8 days. Standard vaccination schedule (one inactive and three live intermediate vaccines) was carried out at three flocks (2, 3 and 5). In other flocks, one live, one inactive and additional more live vaccine were administered to the chicks into water. Despite regular vaccination, IBD epidemic was seen in flocks 1 and 2. In flock 1, an outbreak was reported with 23% mortality in previous breeding period. This proportion was reduced to 4.5% in this enterprise by applying initially live vaccine, and then any sign of clinical infection has not been detected. Antibody titers were entered augmentation trend in flocks 1 and 2 until day 21. probably due to viral load, this turning point was detected on day 14 in other flocks. Statistical analysis clearly showed that MDA titers showed a sharp decrease in the initially live vaccine given flock. In conclusion, to stimulate cellular immune response using initial live dose as soon as possible is more influential. It means, changing standard vaccination schedule was found to be more effective on protection of animals in the critical period of infection, especially in the presence of viral load in the field.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Infectious bursal disease, Maternal derived antibody, Virus, Vaccination

Kaynakça

• 1. Allan WH, Faragher JT, Cullen GA, (1972). Immunosupression by the infectious bursal agent in chickens immunized against Newcastle disease. Vet Rec. 90, 511-512.
• 2. Babila A, Ası Y, Akçadağ B, Gürel A, (1988). İstanbul ve Trakya Bölgesi kümes hayvanlarında IB, ILT, IBD, EDS, AE ve adenovirus enfeksiyonlarının epizootiyolojik araştırması ve izolasyon çalışmaları. Pendik Hay Hast Arş Enst Derg. 19, 6-77.
• 3. Barnes HJ, Wheeler J, Reed D, (1982). Serological evidence of infectious bursal disease virus infection in Iowa turkeys. Avian Dis. 26, 560-565.
• 4. Baysal T, Bozkır M. (1989). Konya Bölgesi kümes hayvanlarında IBD, ILT, EDS, IBD, AE, ve adenovirus enfeksiyonlarının epizootiyolojik araştırılması ve izolasyon çalışmaları. Etlik Vet Mikrobiyol Derg. 6, 23-30.
• 5. Benton WJ, Cover MS, Rosenberger JK, Lake RS, (1967). Physicochemical properties of the infectious bursal disease agent (IBA). Avian Dis. 11, 430-438.
• 6. Cosgrove AS, (1962). An apparently new disease of chickens- Avian Nephrosis. Avian Dis. 6, 385-389.
• 7. De Wit JJ, (1999). Gumboro disease: optimising vaccination. Int Poult Prod. 7, 19-21.
• 8. Ergün A, (1989). Tavukların bazı viral hastalıklarının epizootiyolojik taramasında kullanılmak üzere antijen ve antiserum hazırlanması. Etlik Vet Mikrobiyol Derg. 6, 35-54.
• 9. Eterradossi N, (1995). Progress in the diagnosis and prophylaxis of infectious bursal disease in poultry. OIE, Paris, France, p.75-82.
• 10. Faragher JT, (1972). Infectious bursal disease of chicken. Vet Bull. 42, 361-369.
• 11. Faragher JT, Allan WH, Wyeth CJ, (1974). Immunosupressive effect of infectious bursal disease agent on vaccination against Newcastle disease. Vet Rec. 95, 385-388.
• 12. Fussel LW, (1998). Poultry industry strategies for control of immunosuppressive diseases. Poult Sci. 77, 1193-1196.
• 13. Goddard RD, Wyeth PJ, Varney WC, (1994). Vaccination of commercial layer chicks against infectious bursal disease with maternally derived antibodies. Vet Rec. 135, 273-274.
• 14. Grandin T, (1997). Assessment of stress during handling and transport. J Anim Sci. 75, 249-257.
• 15. Guittet M, Le Coq H, Picault JP, Eterradossi N, Bennejean G, (1992). Safety of infectious bursal disease vaccines: assesment of an acceptability threshold. Dev Biol Stand.79, 147-152.
• 16. Hastings BE, Abbott DE, George LM, (1992). Stress factors influencing plasma cortisol levels and adrenal weights in Chinese water deer (Hydropotesinermis). Res Vet Sci. 53, 375-80.
• 17. Hemsworth PH, Barnett JL, (1989). Relationships betweenfear of human productivity and cage position of laying hens. Br Poult Sci. 30, 505-518.
• 18. Hemsworth PH, Coleman GL, Barnett JL, Borg S, (2000). Relationships between human-animal interactions and productivity of commertial dairy cows. J Anim Sci. 78, 2821- 2831, 2000.
• 19. Howie RI, Thorsen J, (1981). Identification of a strain of infectious bursal disease virus isolated from mosquitoes. Can J Comp Med. 45, 315-320.
• 20. Jackwood DJ, Sommer SE, (1999). Restriction fragment length polymorphisms in the VP2 gene of infectious bursal disease viruses from outside the United States. Avian Dis, 43, 310-314.
• 21. Kandil M, (1978). Hastalıklı piliçlerin bursa Fabricilerinde bir enfeksiyöz bursitis virusun izolasyonu ve bazı özellikleri üzerinde araştırmalar. Yüksek Lisans tezi, Fırat Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Elazığ.
• 22. Lasher HN, Shane SM, (1994). Infectious bursal disease. World Poultry Sci. 50, 133-166.
• 23. Lasher HN, Davis VS, (1997). History of infectious bursal disease in the USA. The first two decades. Avian Dis. 41, 11-19.
• 24. Leong JC, Brown D, Dobos P, Kibenge FSB, Ludert JE, Muller H, Mundt E, Nicholson B, (2000). Family Birnaviridae. Virustaxonomy: classification and nomenclature of viruses. Seventh report of the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses. Van Regenmortel MHV, Fauquet CM, Bishop DHL, Carstens EB, Estes MK, Lemon SM, Maniloff J, Mayo MA, McGeoch DJ, Pringle CR, andWickner RB. eds.Academic Press, San Diego, California, USA, p.481-490.
• 25. Lukert PD, Saif YM, (2003). Infectious bursaldisease. Diseases of Poultry. Calnek BW, Barnes HJ, Beard CW, McDougald LR, Saif YM, eds. 11th ed. Iowa State University Press, Ames, Iowa, USA, p.161-180.
• 26. Lütticken D, (1997). Viral Diseases of the immune system and strategies to control infectious bursal disease by vaccination. Acta Vet Hung. 45, 239-249.
• 27. Marquardt WW, Johnson RB, Odenwald WF, Schlotthober BA, (1980). An indirect enzyme-linked immuno sorbent assay (ELISA) for measuring antibodies in chickens infected with infectious bursal disease virus. Avian Dis. 24, 375- 385.
• 28. McFerran JB, McNulty MS, McKillop ER, Connor TJ, McCracken RM, Collins PS, Allan GM, (1980). Isolation and serological studies with infectious bursal disease viruses from fowl, turkeys and ducks, demonstration of a second serotype. Avian Pathol. 9, 395-404.
• 29. Moraes HLS, Salle CTP, Padilha AP, Nascimento VP, Souza GF, Pereira RA, Artencio JO, Salle FO, (2004). Infectious bursal disease: evaluation of pathogenicity of commercial vaccines from Brazil in specific pathogen free chichens. Brazil J Poult Sci. 6, 243-247.
• 30. Morton DJ, Anderson E, Foggin CM, Kock MD, Tiran EP, (1995). Plasma cortisol as an indicator of stress due to capture and translocation in wildlife species. Vet Rec.136, 60-63.
• 31. Okoye JOA, Uche UE, (1986). Serological evidence of infectious bursal disease virus infection in wild rats. Acta Vet Brno. 55, 207-209.
• 32. Pages-Mante A, Torrents D, Maldonado J, Saubi N, (2004). Dogs as potential carriers of infectious bursal disease virus. Avian Pathol.33, 205-209.
• 33. Rosenberger JK, Cloud SS, (1986). Isolation and characterization of variant infectious bursal disease viruses. J Am Vet Med Assoc.189, 357.
• 34. Sayım Y, Akman A, Girgin H, (1988). Ankara Bölgesi kümes hayvanlarında IB, ILT, EDS, IBD, AE, ve adenovirus enfeksiyonlarının epizootiyolojik araştırılması ve izolasyon çalışmaları. Etlik Vet Mikrobiyol Derg. 6, 83-94.
• 35. Sharma JM, Kim L, Rautemschlein S, Yeh H, (2000). Infections bursal disease virus of chickens: pathogenesis and immunosupression. Dev Comp Immunol. 24, 223-235.
• 36. Shirai L, Seki R, Kamimura R, Mitsubayashi S, (1994). Effects of invert soap with 0.05% sodium hydroxide on infectious bursal disease virus. Avian Dis. 38, 240-243.
• 37. SnedekerC, Wills FK, Moulthrop IM, (1967). Some studies on the infectious bursal disease agent. Avian Dis. 11, 519-528.
• 38. Stoebel DP, Moberg GP, (1982). Repeated Acute Stress During the Follicular Phase and Luteinizing Hormone Surge of Dairy Heifers. J Dairy Sci. 65, 92-96.
• 39. Tsukamoto K, Tanimura N, Hihara H, Shirai J, Imai K, Nakamura K, Maeda M, (1992). Isolation of virulent infectious bursal disease virus from field outbreaks with high mortality in Japan. J Vet Med Sci. 54, 153-155.
• 40. Tsukamoto K, Tanimura N, Kakita S, Ota K, Mase M, Imai K, Hihara H, (1995). Efficacy of three live vaccines against highly virulent infectious bursal disease virus in chickens with or without maternal antibodies. Avian Dis. 39, 218- 229.
• 41. Türe O, Çöven F, (1999). SDS-PAGE ve western immunoblotting teknikleri kullanarak Türkiye’de izole edilen çok virulent infeksiyöz bursal hastalığı viruslarının karşılaştırmalı analizi. Turkish J Vet Anim Sci. 23, 83-92.
• 42. Van Den Berg TP, (2000). Acute infectious bursal disease in poultry: a review. Avian Pathol. 29, 175-194.
• 43. Van Den Berg TP, Meulemans G, (1991). Acute infectious bursal disase in poultry: protection afforded by maternally derived antibodies and interference with live vaccination. Avian Pathol. 20, 409-421.